i could use some help here...ive downloaded the file off torent site ibycustopo32.iso how do i change this to a workable file, i really dont want to burn it too cd theres no point its already on my computer and i'm thinking it will take quite a few cd's that i will never use again so whats the point? 7zip gives me the error msg "cannot open file ibycustopo23.iso as a archive can anyone help? i just want to install it into mapsource then transfer some of it over to the gps

Since this free topo map is distributed via BitTorrent... which is where you should really share(upload) as much as you have download so others can also be able to download (like you have).

Right now there is absolutely nobody sharing the map.

i'm always seeding, but my client has a habit of getting tired after being up for too long. i restarted it now, maybe that fixes things for you.

also there's a chance the trackers are not good. i'm not announcing to DHT, but i have my own tracker running. you'll use that tracker if you use the torrent files i've provided in post #1092, or manually add http://dfx.at:8051/announce to your announce list.

Just a quick note here to say that I've *finally* finished work on version 4.0 of the maps.

This version includes new roads for much of the country (including Quebec, which hadn't been updated since the maps came up), as well as more areas with road names.

Also there is a new version of the underlying dataset for the topo data.

Finally included are what I *hope* are all of the more minor roads that disappeared between version 2.1 and 3.0. These are included as a transparent overlay that can be added to the maps (or any map for that matter).

One note, however: your web server is sending the .torrent file with the mime-type "text/html", causing most browsers to display it as text instead of handling it normally. The correct mime-type is "application/x-bittorrent".

Didn't see your last post so left my computer on all night and it stalled out at 454mb. I'll leave it running and see what happens.

I do have utorrent...but when I click on your link I get the same page...all letters numbers and symbols.

I'm no expert in torrents but if you click on the link and then in the utorrent screen click on add URL it will start the download if there is anything there. As Ibycus said he was going to turn off his computer so you might need to wait until later in the day.

I do have utorrent...but when I click on your link I get the same page...all letters numbers and symbols.

Empty your cache and try again

OR

Try in a different browser you didn't use earlier

OR

Right-click on the link and choose "Save as...", make sure the extension is .torrent and not .torrent.html, then open that file

OR

If it still opens in the browser as garbled text, hit Refresh, and your browser might offer to download it instead

OR

Do what rovers3 said

Basically: ibycus's web server was telling your browser to treat the torrent file as text, which the browser can display directly, rather than an exotic file type that the browser can't display directly and must therefore download. He's fixed that problem, BUT, your browser is still remembering the value from before he fixed it. Any of the above will correct or avoid that issue.

I cleared my cache and it worked fine.Downloading now...gonna be a while due to slow internet here but it'll come.Thanks guys.

That's not necessarily due to slow internet on your side. The original upload still isn't complete, only 60% done, which means nobody could possibly have more than that as of now. Once your download progress reaches that point, it will only go as fast as the original upload goes, which seems to be around 20-30 kB/sec.

I cleared my cache and it worked fine.Downloading now...gonna be a while due to slow internet here but it'll come.Thanks guys.

That's not necessarily due to slow internet on your side. The original upload still isn't complete, only 60% done, which means nobody could possibly have more than that as of now. Once your download progress reaches that point, it will only go as fast as the original upload goes, which seems to be around 20-30 kB/sec.

I don't understand this.
When I look at the torrent it shows that I have downloaded 2.4 gb.
On my hard drive I have an iso file "ibycus topo40.iso" that shows that it contains 4.06 gb of information.
Also the torrent shows that the total file size is 3.78 gb.
So is the iso file not the complete download and why would it show as being larger than the file that I'm downloading?

I don't understand this.
When I look at the torrent it shows that I have downloaded 2.4 gb.
On my hard drive I have an iso file "ibycus topo40.iso" that shows that it contains 4.06 gb of information.
Also the torrent shows that the total file size is 3.78 gb.
So is the iso file not the complete download and why would it show as being larger than the file that I'm downloading?

A lot of clients pre-allocate the required space. That way you don't run out of hard drive space part way through the download, also it makes it easier for the program to download parts of the file in a non sequential manner and keep them all in the right order. In other words -- you aren't done yet, believe the value in the torrent client.

Edit to Add: Just thinking --- I don't know if everyone understands base 2 gigabytes vs. base 10 gigabytes.
As I'm sure most people do know, computers have 'base 2' at their heart (ones and zeros). Consequently a lot of things on the computer come in multiples of 2 (i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc).
Way back when, it used to be pretty standard for people to understand that a 'kilobyte' was actually 1024 bytes, and a megabyte was actually 1024x1024 bytes, etc.

The problem is, in the SI system, kilo, means 1000, not 1024, so some people decided that they could make capacities look 'bigger' by expressing thing as 'base 10', rather than base 2 (and have a good excuse for it in the process). This was typically a ploy of hard drive manufacturers.

If your competition was selling a 540MB hard drive, and you had a 566MB hard drive that you sold for the same price --- guess who sells more? Do the math though, and you'll see that they could technically have the same number of bytes.

So we have a mixed standard. Lots of people still insist on base 2 arithmatic, but others have shifted to base 10. (Personally, I'm more comfortable with base 2).

These days, the difference in sizes can end up being pretty significant. For example, on a "1TB" drive, it coule be either 1099511627776 bytes, or it could be 1000000000000 bytes a difference of 92GB!

Just to add, even though totally off-topic: There's a not-quite-widely accepted standard for getting rid of this ambiguity. Under that standard, the SI prefixes would retain their meaning just as they should (i.e. kB is kilobyte and exactly 1,000 bytes, MB is megabyte and exactly 1,000,000 bytes, etc), and for the base-2 multiplicators you get a new set of binary prefixes, which look the same as the SI prefixes except for an additional "i" and are pronounced slightly different. For example you'd have kiB for kibibyte = 1,024 bytes, MiB for mebibyte = 1,048,576 bytes, GiB for gibibyte and so on. You may have seen those prefixes around somewhere. Personally I find them rather silly and refuse to use them, especially in speech.

Well I guess so...it is my computer and I have installed previous versions of Ibycus maps with no problem. Pretty sure there's something I'm missing or something I've done to cause this...keep trying I guess.

Downloaded the torrent before bed last night, there was no activity and didn't expect anything to have changed when I woke up but... lo and behold, it's done. Completely downloaded, so thanks to the seeders out there. I've only uploaded 125mb which is a pretty small ratio, so if anyone wants Canada Topo 4.0 I'll try to leave it up most of Saturday and Sunday. Cheers!

The map data is indeed up-to-date. Even the new NE portion of the Calgary ring road is there.

It is definitely a good idea to have the old roads as a separate layer.

I have one question though: why are there so many duplicates? I understand that the data probably came from two different sources and there was no way to determine which one was more accurate? Would it be possible to have that split into two separate layers and let the users decide which one they prefer?

My first reaction is that the "B" mapset is more detailed and therefore must be much better than the "A".

The map is indeed up to date. Even the new NE portion of the Calgary ring road is there.

It makes perfect sense to have the Old Roads as a separate layer. I have one question though. Most of the roads that I looked at are duplicated. I guess that is because you had two different sources of data and one was more accurate in some areas and the other one in other areas? So, then you decided to merge them together?

Would it be feasible to have the Old Roads split into two separate datasets? In the following example the "A" road appears to be more accurate than than the "B". So why have both displayed at the same time?

I believe it's because the client is rejecting dot files (.DS_Store and .author), but I'm not sure. My other client (transmission) wants to download it, but sees no sources, not even from DHT.

I decided to repackage this and instructed the program to skip .author and .DS_Store files. Pretty sure they are not necessary - the torrent is being streamed by my Windows server and MacOS likes to sprinkle dot files on network filesystems.

I decided to repackage this and instructed the program to skip .author and .DS_Store files. Pretty sure they are not necessary - the torrent is being streamed by my Windows server and MacOS likes to sprinkle dot files on network filesystems.

.DS_Store files are created by Finder; they store any custom display attributes for the folder, much like Desktop.ini in Windows. Definitely don't need to be in the torrent. I'm not familiar with .author but it almost certainly just contains some other local metadata/cache and also shouldn't be in the torrent.

The map data is indeed up-to-date. Even the new NE portion of the Calgary ring road is there.

It is definitely a good idea to have the old roads as a separate layer.

I have one question though: why are there so many duplicates? I understand that the data probably came from two different sources and there was no way to determine which one was more accurate? Would it be possible to have that split into two separate layers and let the users decide which one they prefer?

My first reaction is that the "B" mapset is more detailed and therefore must be much better than the "A".

I have one question though: why are there so many duplicates? I understand that the data probably came from two different sources and there was no way to determine which one was more accurate? Would it be possible to have that split into two separate layers and let the users decide which one they prefer?

It is the preview map staying visible when the detailed map comes into view. Only the detailed map goes to the GPS.

It is a problem when setting up transparent maps. You need to get the settings just right to prevent this from happening.

Just registered here but have been using Ibycus on my Garmin GPS for a couple of years now. I just downloaded and installed Ibycus 4.0 into MapSource yesterday. The first time I attempted to install I had the same error as BurgeoGull, so I installed it in the Ibycus Topo folder but in its own Ibycus4.0 directory. In MapSource Ibycus 4 looks just fine when zoomed in, but if I zoom out past the 3 mile zoom point all of the lakes and ocean disappear. I haven't transferred the maps over to the GPS yet, but I was wondering if this is happening with others as well, or if I have a problem with how the map installed. I compared it to Ibycus 2.1 and that version retains water features at all zoom levels.

Yes, Ibycus has the settings wrong. I forget the exact details as I do things strangely these days with my maps. He just needs (I think) to make a different TDB file, which could be handed around instead of making a complete new set...

As Ibycus is in University, I'm guessing one needs to wait two weeks before he is seen again!!

So is this 4.0 version all of Canada, and if so where can I find the utorrent download for it?
One more thing I should note and ask, I'm in Regina and notice that there's no names for the streets and roads and etc. yet back at home (Lethbridge) everything is labelled (I have the 3.2 version right now) is there a reason for this, and is this changed in the 4.0 version?

MD5 Sum (for those who know what this is)
3ddd5edfaf793f9cadc6f449ec6d55e4 *IbycusTopo40.iso

Hi,

how can I get the map on my iMac into my Garmin and also into BaseCamp? As far as I found out the original ISO has only some Windows related tools to get the things done...

I have seen that there is already a Mac converted version available, but to be independent I would love to know if there is a way to get the map on a Mac converted without any kind of Windows piece of software?

MD5 Sum (for those who know what this is)
3ddd5edfaf793f9cadc6f449ec6d55e4 *IbycusTopo40.iso

Hi,

how can I get the map on my iMac into my Garmin and also into BaseCamp? As far as I found out the original ISO has only some Windows related tools to get the things done...

I have seen that there is already a Mac converted version available, but to be independent I would love to know if there is a way to get the map on a Mac converted without any kind of Windows piece of software?

Many thanks for any kind of help.

Cheers
Joerg

Short answer: No.

To convert a Windows formatted Garmin map to MacOS format, you have to use Garmin's MapConverter. What I did was put the whole thing in a VirtualBox VM and convert it there so I didn't have to reboot to Bootcamp but that still technically involves using Windows, only it's virtualized.